WOW! that is fucking BIG. also the east part to me has such weird borders. Can anyone explain that?
WOW! that is fucking BIG. also the east part to me has such weird borders. Can anyone explain that?
[edit] wait a moment is that the map in game?
WOW! that is fucking BIG. also the east part to me has such weird borders. Can anyone explain that?
[edit] wait a moment is that the map in game?
Coinage and Fortification Rights? Now that is interesting.More options for vassal contracts. Send your spymaster to dig up some of their dirty secrets then leverage them to force your vassal into gavelkind.
it is really pretty. I have to say. I'm super impressed with this map. Imperator Rome was also amazing. The difference in quality between those and the current games is off the charts!
I was talking more about the literal east border of the map not being a straight line. It makes the map look torn.
Fuck, it all looks so good!
I just have to decide how badly I want it day 0, considering how I did the same with Imperator and then not only was it bad, they added it to Gamepass almost immediately. I'm not super worried about the first, but the second... that stung.
Last I saw it was "in 2020," which granted doesn't leave a ton of slack given it's releasing in Sept.
Last I saw it was "in 2020," which granted doesn't leave a ton of slack given it's releasing in Sept.
I'd like to avoid souring myself on the game. I bought Stellaris at launch, and it was so shallow I didn't touch it again until a few months ago.I'll be fair even the "bad" games of PDS like imperator rome and hearts of iron IV at launch were fun to me. At least much more than what the most games that charge 60€ are.
For me stellaris was great at launch. yeah it had a lot of bugs and it was rather shallow but roleplay as galatic empires never got old.I'd like to avoid souring myself on the game. I bought Stellaris at launch, and it was so shallow I didn't touch it again until a few months ago.
Ironically the thing I liked the most in that version (the three types of interstellar flights) was one of the first things they removed in order to make the game better...
But yeah, as you said, it's a game to be played for years and years to come.
It's both more expressive and less micromanage-y. No more messing around with adjacency bonuses and shit.Stellaris' planetary overhaul improved things way more than I ever would've expected. Splitting planetary buildings into slots, and regular tiles into pop "jobs", on top of the resources add gives so many more things to play with when managing an empire. You can have a bustling planet of bureaucrats and commerence but little resource production--like Coruscant--with an underclass powering its economic machine; you can have a rural farmworld dominated by a criminal syndicate; a forge-world used purely for mineral extraction and refinement, harshly policed and populated by slaves and droids; and you can even have a planet without commerce of any kind, instead run by machines or hive-minds that have no use for such things.
It's just so expressive in a way that the old system never was. You can now look at a planet and have its attributes tell a story.
I'm so happy Paradox is embracing the storytelling/roleplaying aspect of Stellaris, because that's really where it shines brightest.
Its not weird to play stellaris on Xbox. You should play the game in whatever platform you want.I am playing Stellaris on Xbox (YES I KNOW I COULD PLAY IT ON PC BUT I AM WEIRD OK)
Its not weird to play stellaris on Xbox. You should play the game in whatever platform you want.
I am not sure what DLC are available for xbox but a lot of the DLC do add a LOT of fidling to the early and mid game so you aren't just waiting for the end game crysis. If you are enjoying the game and want to increase the content do think about buying DLC.
Paradox is opening a new studio in Barcelona led by Johan to work on EU(5?).
n that note, I wish they'd allow the AI in EU IV to be somewhat competent in higher difficulties and not were not impacted as much as they apparently are by a vocal part of the audience that apparently prefers an incompetent AI with bonuses to an actually good AI making somewhat reasonable decisions (in terms of building buildings, fort placement, pushing development, army composition etc.; that are mostly easy enough to implement for a modder to do so in several hours.)
Its either Victoria 3 or a high fantasy GS.Are we assuming that the game being directed by Wiz is EU5? For some reason I think he already would've moved in another direction.
I think, on balance, I'd prefer something closer to the latter. More factions - like a *lot* more - than Endless Space. I'm imagining something kind of akin to the way that Total Warhammer took the gloves off of Total War by letting them really shake things up, but for EU4. So it's a fixed map with a detailed history, but fantasy instead of historical fiction.So would we expect a fantasy GS to take a Stellaris approach of fully custom factions, or something more akin to Endless Legend with more concrete pre-written lore?
I don't know anyone who wants a Dumb AI that Cheats over a Smart AI that plays by the same rules as the player.
People want to play against a smart AI until they play against it and feel like it is unfair. There is also a problem with an AI that has to take into consideration a ton of variables (such as an open-ended GS game such as the last generation of Paradox games) is incredibly more buggy and arcane (as yes, it might be smart but might be thinking differently). There is a reason why most of the HoI4 "smart AI" mods are about railroading the AI into certain scenarios avoiding the open ended nature (for instance, Soviet AI in HoI4 which sucks unless you tell him there is gonna be a war against Germany in X years). This can also be seen in HoI3 vs HoI4 AI (HoI3 being railroady and the AI being told exactly what to do, making it easier to cheese). That is not to say that Paradox is good at AI and that it is not buggy (it is a fuck ton), but it is... more complex.It's a bit of hearsay and based of a comment by Groogy while Groogy was streaming, quite possibly an offhanded and not necesarily factually accurate. Though I will say, given that Arumba and others fixed many things in his/their mods, there seems to be some merit to the idea, that it's a decision due to the thought that some parts of the player base would not like that.
For about 9 Minutes in this Video by Arumba he talks about it. (Context in the days prior he worked on stream on improving the AI behavior and did make solid progress in that regard.)
So I came to the conclusion that there's some merit to the idea, or at least little hope for the EU IV AI to be as good as it realistically could be, whatever the actual reasons may be. And that kind of turns me off greatly from EU IV, so much so, that I might not play it again after ~850 hours.
People want to play against a smart AI until they play against it and feel like it is unfair. There is also a problem with an AI that has to take into consideration a ton of variables (such as an open-ended GS game such as the last generation of Paradox games) is incredibly more buggy and arcane (as yes, it might be smart but might be thinking differently). [...]
THere is also the discussion as told by Firaxis / Blizzard / strategy devs about "Smart vs Fun to play against AI". It is not that easy basically